Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 10

Craig is not a scientist.
Regarding this revert, Craig is not a scientist, and we have no source backing up the claim we are making, in wikipedia's voice no less, that his arguments are supported by science. It is sourced only to a lecture by Craig. This is WP:OR. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 18:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is in the citation. Please take some time to read it as it can help you from being blocked for edit warring.  As for the scientist part, I agree.  But Stephen Hawking is.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you're reading my comments. Source 1 is a lecture given by Craig. Interpreting his talk to support a statement in wikipedia's voice that his arguments are scientifically supported is original research. The second source has 4 mentions of Craig, none on page 17; linking it to Craig's arguments is synthesis. The same goes for taking a talk from Hawking that never mentions Craig or his arguments.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you are trying to get me blocked I'll limit my participation on this talk page until that is resolved. In the mean time, user B makes the point I was trying to make, below, except more eloquently.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to get you to participate in discussion instead of repeatedly reverting. You still have yet to respond to the myriad of sources I've listed to support my edits above, which you reverted without comment. Please do that. 19:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Scientifically" simply means that he's discussing the science. It does not mean that Craig is a scientist or that his science-related arguments have scientific validity. I can talk with you "philosophically" (the other word in there that was not reverted) - it doesn't mean that I'm a philosopher or that my arguments are worthwhile philosophy. --B (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * By stating "Craig supports his arguments scientifically", we are implying scientific support for his arguments. We can say "Craig believes his arguments are supported by scientific evidence" or "Craig discusses Hawking's work when formulating his arguments" without issue. However, at the moment, the current wording is completely unsourced and not attributed to Craig, and it apparently implies something which was unintended.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a bizarre way of interpreting the text. Does anyone else read it the same way?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "... the current wording is ... not attributed to Craig ... ." Not a problem - it's not in quotes so it shouldn't be his wording - it should be original wording. " ... the current wording is completely unsourced ..." again, see above.  HOWEVER, if you would instead say that it is supported only by primary sources and that Wikipedia articles should be sourced using secondary reliable sources, not the subject's own video, then I would agree with that. --B (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not saying it should be a quote. I'm saying it should be worded as an opinion attributed to Craig, if at all. It's the difference between "Craig references science" and "The science supports Craig". The former is cited (albeit poorly - only to Craig's lecture), the latter is not sourced, except as Craig's own opinion (not the majority, or even minority view). I think we're on the same page, B. I don't mind saying Craig discusses science, and indeed I included that wording elsewhere in the article, but we shouldn't imply Craig is doing science or that the science supports his views, without independent sources saying just that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

More reverts without rationale
And... more reverts without any rationale or discussion. The edit summary was "You can't just delete that much material from the page". Can you point to that policy page, please? Every one of the 26 edits reverted had a detailed edit summary and justification. Nonetheless, unsourced and poorly sourced material has been restored, simplified wording was made nearly incomprehensible, cleanup tags were removed, and so on, and despite all that, seven hours later, still no attempt at discussion on the talk page. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 04:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed TMDrew's bad faith edit has restored unreferenced material, removed citation request tags and added back incomprehensible text. There appears to be no hope for a neutral article here with such ownership issues. Theroadislong (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ordering of Lead
I reorganized parts of the lead, but was reverted. There are several problems with the current order, causing it to violate our policies on due weight, as well as the manual of style. The lead needs to be changed to reflect the body and the sources. More than just a restructuring is necessary, but this is where we need to start at a minimum. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 18:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * MOS: The lead is intended to summarize the body. In the body, we have excruciating detail covering Craig's apologetics, but not one single section devoted to analytic philosophy or the philosophy of time outside of theology. Yet, our lead describes him as primarily an analytic philosopher interested in the philosophy of time.
 * 1) His Works: Craig's own works primarily cover apologetics. See here; the first mentioned are "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview", "On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision", and so on. All theological works, specifically pertaining to Christian apologetics.
 * 2) Sources: This article has a problem with using craig's promotional literature to describe and document him, instead of independent sources. The only sources which describe him foremost as an analytic philosopher are sourced to his autobiography. Independent sources describe him primarily as a Christian apologist. The source used to back up the label "analytic philosopher", in fact, never calls him that, and repeatedly refers to him as a theologian. Here are several independent sources: "a prominent Christian academic and apologist", "Chrisian apologist", [ http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/pitting-evolution-against-creationism/ "Apologist"], "noted Christian apologist", "Christian Apologist", "Christian apologist...Many professional philosophers" (outside of theology) "know about him only vaguely", "Christian theologian", "Theologian", "American theologian". These are literally the first results you find when searching for Craig online which give him any label. Not one calls him an "analytic philosopher".
 * 3) The weight presented to each label in the lead directly contradicts the weight presented in the article. Quoting from the body: "Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument." If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist.


 * What you are calling "apologetics" is actually philosophy (.e.g., the Cosmological Argument). Apologetics is a generic term that can be used outside of philosophy and theology, hence the order in the article.  Also, his degrees are in Philosophy and Theology, not in apologetics.  He does do Christian apologetics, certainly, but then so does Richard Dawkins.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I made several very specific points, backed up by a myriad of sources. Could you respond to those, please? It doesn't matter what you, as an editor, call his work, it matters what the sources say. And this discussion has nothing to do with Dawkins.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind these sourced counteropinions:
 * Why I Am Not a Christian (2000), Keith M. Parsons, Atlanta Freethought Society in 2000. [1 ]
 * Two Ways to Prove Atheism (1996), Quentin Smith, Atheist Alliance convention in Minneapolis, MN on April 6, 1996[2 ]
 * Review of Reasonable Faith (2007), Chris Hallquist, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 350 pp[3 ]
 * Reply To Professor Craig (1995), Graham Oppy, Sophia 34, 2, December 1995, pp.15-29[4 ]
 * Quantum Cosmology's Implication of Atheism (1997), Quentin Smith, Analysis 57.4, October 1997, pp. 295-304[5 ]
 * The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The Question of the Metaphysical Possibility of an Infinite Set of Real Entities (2002)
 * (Revised 2014), Arnold T. Guminski, Philo (Vol. 5, pp. 196-215)[6 ]
 * Inverse Operations With Transfinite Numbers And The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1995), Graham Oppy, International Philosophical Quarterly, 35, 2, pp.219-221[7 ]
 * Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story, A Reply to William Lane Craig, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 251-93[8 ]
 * God (1997), Jan Narveson, Reason Papers, #22 - Fall 97, pp. 109-118[9 ]
 * The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism (1992), Quentin Smith, RELIGIOUS STUDIES in 1992 (Volume 28, pp. 347-350)[10 ]
 * To make the article neutral, these should be considered.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Billionaire
Why do people consistently call him a billionaire? I see no way he could have made or inherited that kind of money. Abductive (reasoning) 20:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ??? Where "do people consistently call him a billionaire"? Certainly not in this article or on the talk page - your claim is the first time I've ever heard it mentioned and I've read plenty of criticism of Craig (which I actually tend to agree with, btw).
 * Are you sure you've posted this on the right talk page? Or perhaps you've just seen the provocative titles of a couple of YT videos? If so, these video titles were the only accurate hits a quick Google search gave me on William Lane Craig and billionaire. Mojowiha (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You must be talking about this video entitled Sean Carroll Completely Dominates Billionaire William Lane Craig. All I will say is that there is such thing as mental illness, and where you draw conclusions that are just so illogical, I think it could be classified as a thought disorder 182.255.99.214 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Prominence of theologian, philosopher
This edit by an ip is attempting to change the order of our lead, suggesting that WLC is more prominently known as a philosopher than a theologian. This is territory we've been over extensively in the past, so I'd like to discuss it again here before changing the article. The IP says that sources support his claim, so I'd like to see them to assess. Thanks! &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * He identifies himself as, "William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University." (Emphasis added.) Nothing about "apologist" in there (no Phd's in "apologetics")  It seems to me that the vast majority of his work, therefore, is in philosophy, not apologetics, although he occasionally does that too.  To label him as an "apologist" first and foremost is really to denigrate him (since any Tom, Dick, or Harry can be an apologist, without any formal training) and misleading to the average reader, which I'm sure is your liking but not fair or accurate in a WP article.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia, with his wife Jan and their two teenage children Charity and John. At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until 1994."

http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/

"Research Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology

D. Theol., Ludwig-Maximilliéns-Universität München, Germany; Ph.D., University of Birmingham, England; M.A., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Dr. Craig is one of the world's leading philosophers of religion and holds the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the university of Birmingham, England, and a D.Theol. from the University of Munich, Germany. He is the author or editor of numerous cutting-edge works in philosophy, theology, and apologetics, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom, Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology, and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology. Find him on the web at www.reasonablefaith.org."

http://www.biola.edu/academics/sas/apologetics/faculty/

"Houston Baptist University is pleased to announce that Dr. William Lane Craig will join the faculty as a Professor of Philosophy in the Fall of 2014. Dr. Craig is an internationally known philosopher and theologian. He has authored or edited more than 40 books and over 150 journal articles, including his signature book Reasonable Faith. Recognized for his groundbreaking work in philosophy of time and in philosophy of religion, Dr. Craig is also well known as a teacher and debater. He has successfully debated prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens."

https://www.hbu.edu/About-HBU/General-Information/HBU-in-the-News/Press-Releases/2014/January/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-to-Join-HBU-Faculty.aspx

Jess, can you provide at least three sources that are equally reliable as Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, and Houston Baptist University that support your idea that WLC should be labeled a theologian first and a philosopher second?

2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)


 * Thanks for providing a source. Yes, when Craig speaks of himself, he often refers to himself foremost as a philosopher. However, independent sources most often refer to him as a theologian. Here's what I wrote about this last April, including several sources:
 * MOS: The lead is intended to summarize the body. In the body, we have excruciating detail covering Craig's apologetics, but not one single section devoted to analytic philosophy or the philosophy of time outside of theology.
 * His Works: Craig's own works primarily cover apologetics. See here; the first mentioned are "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview", "On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision", and so on. All theological works, specifically pertaining to Christian apologetics.
 * Sources: This article has a problem with using craig's promotional literature to describe and document him, instead of independent sources. The only sources which describe him foremost as an analytic philosopher are sourced to his autobiography. Independent sources describe him primarily as a Christian apologist. The source used to back up the label "analytic philosopher", in fact, never calls him that, and repeatedly refers to him as a theologian. Here are several independent sources: "a prominent Christian academic and apologist", "Chrisian apologist", [ http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/pitting-evolution-against-creationism/ "Apologist"], "noted Christian apologist", "Christian Apologist", "Christian apologist...Many professional philosophers" (outside of theology) "know about him only vaguely", "Christian theologian", "Theologian", "American theologian". These are literally the first results you find when searching for Craig online which give him any label. Not one calls him an "analytic philosopher".
 * Weight: The weight presented to each label in the lead should reflect the the weight presented in the article. Quoting from the body: "Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument." If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist.
 * I'm glad we're talking about this now. Per BRD, I'm going to revert back to the state the article has been in for some time, and we can figure out the details here and make whatever change is best. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears you edited your post after I responded to it to add a few more sources. Biola and Talbot are both very likely to have been written by Craig (that's how those blurbs usually work), but even still, Biola lists him prominently under "Apologetics Faculty", and first lists "philosopher of religion" in his blurb. Again, it is our job foremost to reflect independent sources, not press releases closely tied to the subject.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, when Craig speaks of himself, he often refers to himself foremost as a philosopher.

Which is important, unless you presume Craig is a liar, or that his perspective is distorted in some way.

However, independent sources most often refer to him as a theologian.

That's indeed your claim.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that is true. Does that mean he is in fact a theologian first and foremost? And isn't the primary job of an encyclopedia to disseminate facts and not mere popular opinion? Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If I could find 10 independent sources that claimed Craig is a duck, then would that mean we should refer to him as a duck in his Wikipedia article? Let's use some common sense here.

I'd take the WLC profiles written by Biola.edu, HBU.edu, and Talbot.edu over sources like “Sabrina Dougall" from redbrick.me. You say that the profiles from Biola and Talbot were most likely written by Craig. Prove it. What do you mean "that's how it usually works"? That's pure speculation on your part. Even if we were to grant you "that's how it usually works," that doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened here. And what about HBU.edu? Is that a puff piece too? Those profiles appear to be written by Biola.edu and Talbot.edu, not Craig, so the burden of proof is on your shoulders here. In regard to the redbrick.me article, it didn't even call Craig a theologian, nor did it state that he teaches theology. It did, however, talk about how he teaches philosophy, and although the article did mention him as a "prominent Christian academic and apologist," please note the order and the question it raises: an academic in what? Richard Dawkins is a prominent atheist academic, but he is a biologist. Is he not? And should we speculate on who exactly wrote that article? Maybe we should speculate that Richard Dawkins was over her shoulder whispering into her ear.

His Works: Craig's own works primarily cover apologetics. See here; the first mentioned are "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview", "On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision", and so on. All theological works, specifically pertaining to Christian apologetics.

Your link is a Google Book search of “William Lane Craig” and your claim is that because the books at the top of the list are Christian apologetics (so you believe), then therefore most of Craig's works are Christian apologetics. Well, obviously, that doesn't hold water. All you've shown is that his most popular books (according to Google) are Christian apologetic in nature--not that his body of work as a whole is mainly Christian apologetics. Using your logic, Richard Dawkins body of work is mainly atheistic because his most popular book (according to Google) is the God Delusion. Secondly, I'm going to need you to define for me what you believe Christian apologetics, theology, philosophy, and natural theology mean, because I get the impression that you may not know what they mean (no offense).You seem to think that if somebody presents arguments in favor of a god's existence or in particular, the Christian God, then that automatically means it is theology regardless of whether or not it comes from a philosophical context. If a group of renowned scientists came forward with a piece of unequivocal evidence in favor of the existence of God, would you call that science or theology? You do realize natural theology is a branch of philosophy, correct? Before that's resolved, it makes little sense to evaluate books like “Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview” as philosophy, theology, christian apologetics, etc. 2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)

Biola lists him prominently under "Apologetics Faculty", and first lists "philosopher of religion" in his blurb

That doesn't surprise me since Craig is, after all, a Christian apologist, among other things. The question is should he be labeled an apologist first, a theologian second, and then a philosopher last. Additionally, Biola.edu, HMU.edu, and Talbot.edu, are all credible sources. That being said, let's say what they've written is untrue like you've claimed. Do you think these three fine institutions would publish lies or half-truths? If Craig asked them to write about how he once went to wizard school and how he has the power to cast fireballs, would they publish that too? Or would they check the facts? 2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)

"Leading philosopher Professor William Lane Craig is to give this year’s Edward Cadbury Lectures at the University of Birmingham." http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/02/2015-cadbury-lectures-24-02-15.aspx

Peter Millican, an atheist philosopher whom Craig once debated even labels Craig a philosopher first on his website.

"In 2011, William Lane Craig, the prominent American philosopher of religion and Christian evangelist, toured a number of British universities debating with atheists and sceptics. Richard Dawkins' refusal to engage with Craig at an event in the Sheldonian Theatre that I was invited to chair caused quite a stir, provoking a suggestion of cowardice from an Oxford colleague in The Guardian, and various jokes from Christian sources including a campaign of advertisements on Oxford buses, a couple of Hitler Downfall parodies, and some cartoons, one of which had me in the firing line." http://www.millican.org/other.htm

"William Lane Craig is a Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. He is an evangelical Christian, having committed his life to Christ while an undergraduate at Wheaton College...Craig is best known for his extensive work on the kalam cosmological argument, and has also published material on the philosophy of time and on divine foreknowledge. His publications also include some more accessible works on Christian apologetics. A selection of his essays is available on-line at his Virtual Office." http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/whos-who/modern-authors/william-lane-craig/#more-119

"William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He holds a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham and a doctorate in theology from the University of Munich." http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2012/02/01/william-lane-craig-interview/ 2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)

4.Weight: The weight presented to each label in the lead should reflect the the weight presented in the article. Quoting from the body: "Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument." If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist.

The cosmological argument isn't limited to Christian apologetics. Theoretically, an atheist, agnostic, or somebody who believes in purely a generic kind of god could defend or publish work on the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument doesn't even call for the Christian God. Using your own logic, should we then say that because Alvin Plantinga is well known or even best known for his work on the problem of evil, then therefore he should be described as being best known as a Christian apologist in his Wikipedia bio? 2601:901:8000:1169:2C99:4A9E:793B:9469 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are we nearly unanimously saying that he should be called a philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist (in whatever order)? After all, isn't apologetics a subset of theology?  Why not just call him a philosopher and theologian (in whatever order), and then say that he is more specifically a Christian apologist, metaphysician, philosophical theologian, or whatever?  Would that make sense, or am I missing something? By the way, it seems like there is a box around see words. Can somebody help remove that please? I'm kind of new, so... Thunder4231Rush (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are some other sources that label William Lane Craig a philosopher first before calling him an apologist, theologian, etc.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-philosopher-william-lane-craig-calls-atheist-hotline-a-wrong-number-98182/

http://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/william-craig/profile

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392

http://michaelgleghorn.com/artReasonableFaith.php

http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/craig-kalam-and-quantum-mechanics-has-craig-defeated-the-quantum-mechanics-objection-to-the-causal-principle-870.html

http://www.christianpost.com/news/leading-apologist-william-lane-craig-to-join-houston-baptist-us-school-of-christian-thought-faculty-114001/ 2601:901:8000:1169:2C99:4A9E:793B:9469 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but if you don't know of William Lane Craig's work as a philosopher major student, then you probably need to ask for a refund on your University degree... His work on the Kalam cosmological argument appears in most basic undergraduate textbooks. I'm sorry to emphasize the bleeding the obvious, but sometimes it is just necessary to say it, rather than let people who are coming in from other fields (for example computing) to make remarks that are just obviously rubbish 182.255.99.214 (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The number of times that people refer to William Lane Craig mentioning his educational achievement or mentioning the terms 'Professor of Philosophy' or 'Philosophy Professor' should be noted in making decisions about what to put first in terms of philosopher, apologist, or theologian.

Moreover, along with the academic book references I have already contributed to the main Wikipedia page for William Lane Craig, two additional non-news sources are listed below which describe William Lane Craig as a philosopher and do not mention the words 'apologist', 'Christian apologist', 'theologian' nor 'Christian theologian'. The person responsible for the first source is an atheist. The person responsible for the second source is a Muslim. The only career title given to William Lane Craig in these two sources are as a philosopher.


 * http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html
 * http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/philosophy-theology/a-philosophical-perspective-on-the-uniqueness-of-the-quran/

A blog entry by an atheist cosmologist Sean Carroll states that William Lane Craig is a philosopher and theologian (the word 'apologist' only appears once and only in user comments, and not by Sean Carroll himself, further down the page):


 * http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/04/05/debating-william-lane-craig/

Similarly, Peter S. Williams, author of A Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of Wisdom (2013; Milton Keynes: Paternoster; ISBN: 9781842278116), states in multiple blog entries that William Lane Craig is a 'Christian philosopher, theologian and apologist':


 * Williams, Peter S. (2008) 'Craig vs. Cooke'. ID.Plus. Retrieved 11 August 2015.
 * Williams, Peter S. (2009) 'William Lane Craig defends the viability of Intelligent Design Theory in Biology'. ID.Plus. Retrieved 11 August 2015.

Many links to Graham Oppy's work have been provided, here is another work by Graham Oppy, who only uses philosopher to describe William Lane Craig here, justifying the placement of philosopher, or Christian philosopher, as first among the words philosopher, apologist and theologian: "In Theism, Atheism And Big Bang Cosmology, William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith--two philosophers ...-- claim to have begun philosophical debate about Big Bang cosmology" (Oppy, Graham [1996, n.p., 'Book Review: Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology', The Secular Web / Internet Infidels, electronic version from 1998. Retrieved 11 August 2015.).]

All the sources that have been listed in this post do more than justify placing philosopher, or in this case Christian philosopher, ahead of apologist or theologian for the official William Lane Craig article on Wikipedia.

I suspect that most academic in-text citations of William Lane Craig are similar to the format Craig (year) or Craig (year, page number) without any describing words. When published, particularly by philosophers other than William Lane Craig himself, in academic books on topics within philosophy and academic philosophy journals, the principle of charity could suggest that it is best to interpret that author as thinking of William Lane Craig in terms of being a philosopher first unless that philosopher has used another word to describe William Lane Craig in the journal article when first mentioning him, or unless the philosopher is using William Lane Craig's work to make a point unrelated to William Lane Craig's work in philosophy of religion, or perhaps unless that philosopher states that - in citing William Lane Craig - they are attempting to be interdisciplinary in their approach to writing the philosophy article/book and that they believe that William Lane Craig represents a different discipline to philosophy.

In short: the sources describing William Lane Craig as an apologist do not take into account all the in-text citations of William Lane Craig in philosophy books and articles with only something like 'Craig (year)' or 'Craig (year, page number)' to describe who William Lane Craig is, many perhaps even most of which should be interpreted as suggesting that Craig is a philosopher for the purposes of the author's (philosopher's) citation.

Col8lok8 (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an absurd amount of text to go through. Can we try to keep future responses a little shorter? That will make having a discussion about this considerably easier. I read through your recent reply. Every source you provided is a blog post, and we try to avoid using blog posts as sources, especially in a BLP. Our lead is intended to reflect the article content, and the article content is focused almost exclusively on Craig's work in apologetics (since that is what our sources cover most), and so our lead should reflect that. If you have sources which discuss other work from Craig in depth, we could possibly include that content as well, and that would shift our weight for the lead.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I provided several news sources above, but here are several book sources. The funny thing is, the difficulty isn't in finding book sources generally; it is in finding sources about WLC that aren't written by WLC.
 * Chris Sandoval: William Lane Craig of Biola University, the brightest and best apologist of our times...
 * Brian Morley: Classical Apologetics... One of the most prolific and respected scholars in the classical camp is William Lane Craig
 * Clifford McManis William Lane Craig, who many claim to be the premiere Christian apologist of our time
 * Alex McFarland: Moreland and Craig are two top contemporary apologists
 * Our primary interest should be reflecting our own article in the lead, but these sources give some indication of weight.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * First, according to BLP, there is nothing wrong with using blogs per se.  They are perfectly acceptable within certain guidelines.  Second, sources written by WLC himself are also ok.  Third, regarding your four references above, those are in the context of apologetics (being books about apologetics).  WLC certainly does do apologetics, but that's not how he is primarily identified or self-identifies.  The vast number of sources given above by Col8lok8, on the other hand, clearly state his qualifications and vocation as a philosopher.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jess, as Bill the Cat says, you are citing the wrong kind of books in searching for William Lane Craig as a philosopher. For that you need philosophy and philosophical theology books. When writing about Christian apologetics in response to Christian apologetics of course one expects that authors may want to appeal to someone's career as an Christian apologist.


 * I have given five philosophers who describe William Lane Craig as a philosopher: Peter S. Williams (blog links, but he is an author of a philosophy book and uses William Lane Craig in it), Steven B. Cowan (book), Chad V. Meister (book), Graham Oppy (web link), James S. Spiegel (book). I could add to that list one or both of Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan - Copan is a philosopher, Flannagan is a theologian with education credentials in philosophy. In their book Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God (2014), they use the words 'the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig' (pp. 21, 81) and 'Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig' (p. 23). This particular book could be described as an apologetics book, and so the Christian apologetics literature is mixed on how they describe William Lane Craig, but you have cited no philosophy books.


 * Furthermore the philosopher William Hasker's entry titled 'Analytic Philosophy of Religion' in the 'Approaches' section of the Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion (edited by William J. Wainwright) mentions William Lane Craig in the same paragraph alongside both William L. Rowe and Richard Swinburne. The lack of differentiating between the two and William Lane Craig suggests to me that Hasker takes William Lane Craig to be as much as a philosopher of religion as the other two people he mentions. This is confirmed in Hasker's book Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (2013, Oxford University Press: Oxford, p. 139) where he states 'In William Lane Craig we encounter for the first time a philosopher who explicitly identifies himself as a Social trinitarian'.


 * It is a mistake to think that the bulk of the article reflects on William Lane Craig's work as an apologist. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, divine command theory and reformed epistemology are philosophy, and eternity, omniscience and aseity all involve philosophy, critiquing Quine's epistemology involves engaging in philosophy, talking about A and B theory of time involves talking about philosophy, discussions about free will are philosophical discussions, etc. His apologetics work is done first and foremost as a Christian philosopher due to the fact that he is first and foremost a Christian philosopher. Col8lok8 (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Craig is most famous for his apologetics and debates, and not for his "work" in philosophy.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course searching for books on "philosophy" will contain the word "philosopher" more frequently. The fact that Craig appears in numerous works on apologetics supports the idea that he's known as a Christian apologist, it doesn't disqualify those works just because they are apologetics. "Christian philosophy" and "Christian apologetics" are largely overlapping (in fact, I have some trouble distinguishing the two at all). The issue at hand is that Craig often tries to represent himself as simply a philosopher, which sources largely do not support, and we should not reproduce. His notability comes almost exclusively from his work on apologetics (sometimes referred to as "Christian philosophy"), not from his work as a "philosopher".  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is, unfortunately, not a discussion with people who have extensively studied philosophy of religion at tertiary education instutitions. I find it very hard to find any academic philosophy books covering contemporary philosophy of religion which describe William Lane Craig, when going into greater detail about his career, as anything other than a philosopher. I have added, from my study of philosophy as a philosopher, another superb academic philosophy book which only describes William Lane Craig as a philosopher with none of other terms, apologist or theologian, being used. Here is the Google Books link Roy Jackson's, 2014, The God of Philosophy: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Routledge: Oxon and New York. Hopefully the link works, otherwise see the article page for the quote. Most of what you have called 'Christian apologetics', which I have called 'Christian philosophy', is seen in university philosophy departments all around the world as either metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of space and time.

I am not arguing that we should only describe William Lane Craig as a philosopher but if one cuts out or remove everything that is studied by philosophy students who are studying at universities around the world then one is left with much less than half of William Lane Craig's work. Col8lok8 (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How is this even an issue? Craig is first and foremost an academic philosopher. Daniel Dennett is as much of an atheist apologist as Craig is a Christian apologist, yet his lead doesn't read "American atheist apologist, atheist philosopher, writer, etc." Regardless of one's opinion of Craig, only the dishonest or ignorant can deny his primacy as an analytic philosopher. C7S (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this question still seriously a matter of debate? The reasons provided for refusing Craig the primary title of philosopher are very poor.
 * First, one's biographical details ought not to be weighted primarily by Googling, since Google doesn't capture many aspects of one's academic work and importance. A better source is academic materials, which affirms that Craig is first and foremost a philosopher.
 * Second, we should not base editorial choices on unevidenced speculation. The claims that Craig may possibly have written all the bios where he is described as a philosopher is not supported by any evidence. This level of suspicion is also not the norm for Wikipedia biographies. This makes it seem like a personal editorial bias uniquely against Craig.
 * The choice seems clear to me: accord with the rest of the academia, and move 'philosopher' to the top. BabyJonas (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with BabyJonas. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)